Indecision: Britain 2010

Polls: Conservatives fall short of majority in UK

By PAISLEY DODDS and DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press Writers Paisley Dodds And Danica Kirka, Associated Press Writers Thu May 6, 7:57 pm ET

 

LONDON – The Conservatives captured the largest number of seats and the ruling Labour Party suffered substantial losses Thursday in Britain's national election, according to television projections based on exit polls.

The projected result did not bode well for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister since 2007, and triggered widespread uncertainty over who will form the next government. The country's top three parties — the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats — immediately began jockeying for position in possible coalition.
Frustrated voters, meanwhile, said they were turned away from polling stations and some stations appeared overwhelmed by late voter turnout — a sign of the intense interest in this election.

An analysis by Britain's main television networks suggested David Cameron's Conservative party will win 305 House of Commons seats, short of the 326 seats needed for a majority.
The projections also showed a substantial drop for Brown's ruling Labor Party, giving it 255 seats — its smallest number since 1987. Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats were seen as winning 61 seats — far less than had been expected. Smaller parties got 29 other seats.

The projection suggests that the Conservatives will gain 95 seats, Labour will lose 94 and the Liberal Democrats will lose one.

If the vote does not give any party a majority, that could produce a destabilizing period of political wrangling and uncertainty. Brown could resign if he feels the results have signaled he has lost his mandate to rule, or he could try to stay on as leader and seek a deal in which smaller parties would support him.

"Let's see how it pans out. Gordon will know whether he should stay on or not," Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson said. "I think Gordon deserves the dignity to look at these things and make up his own mind."

Hard results began to trickle in about an hour after polls closed. The first seat to declare, Houghton and Sunderland South in northern England, was retained by Labour.

Hundreds of British voters across the country claimed they were unable to vote because they were left still standing in long lines when polls closed at 10 p.m. (2100 GMT, 5 p.m. EDT).

Police in London said they were called to a polling station in east London when about 50 angry voters denied the chance to cast their ballot staged a sit-in protest. Voters in Sheffield, Newcastle and elsewhere in London also complained that they had been denied a vote because of lines as polls closed.

Theresa May, a senior Conservative Party lawmaker, said the exit poll result showed Labour's heaviest losses since 1931, and that the incumbent party had lost "the legitimacy to govern."

But Labour's Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, pointed out that the sitting prime minister is traditionally given the first chance to form a government.

"The rules are that if it's a hung Parliament, it's not the party with the largest number of seats that has first go, it's the government," he said. "I have no problem in principle in trying to supply this country with a stable government."

He extended an olive branch to the Liberal Democrats, who have called to end the first-past-the-post system, where the number of districts won — not the popular vote — determines who leads the country.

"There has to be electoral reform as a result of this election," Mandelson said. "First-past the-post is on its last legs."

The results may yet change. Projecting elections based on exit polls is inherently risky — particularly in an exceptionally close election like this one. Polls are based on samples — in this case 18,000 respondents — and always have some margin of error.

Britain's census is nine years out of date and the polling districts haven't caught up to population shifts. Many voters also refuse to respond to exit polls.

Thousands have also already cast postal ballots but those results don't factor into the exit polls. About 12 percent cast postal ballots in 2005.

The election result would be disastrous news for the Liberal Democrats, Britain's longtime third party, who enjoyed a big poll surge after the charismatic Clegg appeared in televised TV debates.
 
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Vince Cable described the outcome of the exit poll as "very strange" and insisted they had been "horribly wrong" in the past.

The Tories are hoping to regain power for the first time since 1997, when they were ousted by Labour under Tony Blair. After three leaders and three successive election defeats, the party selected Cameron, a fresh-faced, bicycle-riding graduate of Eton and Oxford who promised to modernize the party's fusty, right-wing image.

Whoever wins faces the daunting challenge of introducing big budget cuts to slash Britain's huge deficit.

In late trading in New York, the British pound sank to its lowest point in a year to trade at $1.4715.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Time to Prosecute Corporate Criminals at Massey, BP

Minuscule fines ,comparatively speaking, aren't  getting the job done. Maybe jail time will get corporate attention.

By Ruth Conniff, May 5, 2010

Nothing prevents the government from criminally prosecuting corporate CEOs who willfully ignore health and safety standards, killing workers, as in Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, and causing environmental catastrophe, as in BP’s massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

For years, we haven't seen many corporate criminals prosecuted in the United States, thanks to the power of corporate lobbyists and the reluctance of government officials to take on business interests.

A PBS Frontline show "A Dangerous Business"—notes that, in the 32 years since OSHA was created, there have been over 200,000 workplace deaths. But OSHA has referred only 151 of these cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Of these, only eight have resulted in prison sentences for company officials.


There is a lot of political pressure not to seek prison terms for CEOs of unscrupulous companies, and little public sentiment pushing the government and prosecutors to get tough on corporate criminals.
But that may be changing.

The explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig off the coast of Louisiana that killed eleven people and led to an oil spill that will soon surpass Exxon Valdez in its size and destructiveness led Attorney General Eric Holder to announce a Justice Department investigation into health and safety protocol aboard the BP-leased the rig.

BP was involved in a Texas oil refinery explosion that killed 15 people in 2005. And the company seems to have foregone the safety systems that allow deep-water oil rigs off the coast in Northern Europe to avoid catastrophic accidents.

Public patience with accidents caused by lax safety and environmental standards is wearing thin.

This became clear after the Massey Energy mine disaster.

"I live in West Virginia, and my sense is the tide is turning politically [in the wake of the mine disaster]," Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter told me. "With the oil spill in the Gulf and with the deaths of the mine workers, there is fertile ground for a renewed social movement against corporate crime."

Mokhiber points to a raft of opinion pieces calling for criminal charges against Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship.

Blankenship is a particularly odious character. A heavyweight in Republican politics in his state, he ran a justice off the West Virginia Supreme Court and installed his own coal-friendly judge. Under his leadership, Massey Energy has been cited for safety violations again and again-with 1,300 violations in the Upper Big Branch Mine alone since 2005, and 50 in the last month for poor ventilation--the apparent cause of the recent disaster.

After 29 people died at the Upper Big Branch mine last week, Bob Franken of The Hill newspaper in Washington, DC, wrote:

"Perhaps it's time for Don Blankenship to get involved with the courts again. This time, as a defendant. The charge: murder."

Franken points out that the sentence for involuntary manslaughter in West Virginia is one year in prison per case--or a possible 29 years for Blankenship.

It's not such a far-fetched notion. In a 2005 memo to deep mine supervisors, Blankenship ordered the miners not to work on anything but "running coal." They were not to "build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever." When a deadly fire broke out at Massey's Aracoma mine, killing two men, the memo became Exhibit A at a trial that ultimately resulted in a $2.5 million fine for the company.

That sort of direct complicity in flouting safety standards could form the basis for a criminal prosecution of Blankenship.

There is important legal precedent for bringing such charges.

Mokhiber cites the Ford Pinto case: In 1978, three teenage girls driving in a Ford Pinto were hit from behind on Highway 33 in northern Indiana. All three died from terrible burns after their car burst into flames. An Indiana grand jury indicted the Ford Motor Company for reckless homicide for making and selling the Pinto with an unsafe fuel tank.

"Although Ford was ultimately acquitted, the criminal prosecution of Ford Motor Company reestablished an important precedent: In certain cases involving human health and safety, corporations and their executives could be required to submit not only to the scrutiny and sanctions of traditional federal agencies, but to state criminal courts as well," The Corporate Crime Reporter notes.

Mokhiber sees parallels to the Massey Energy mine disaster.


Despite the intimidation factor of taking on a politically powerful figure like Blankenship and a big company like Massey, the Pinto case sets a precedent for an underfunded, public-interest-minded prosecutor to do just that.

"The Pinto case was brought by a Republican state prosecutor in Indiana," Mokhiber notes. "He was totally outgunned for resources by Ford. He relied on law students for support. Even thought the company was ultimately found not guilty, it set an important precedent."
Another role model Mokhiber cites is Ira Reiner, who was the LA County district attorney in the early 1980s. Reiner made it a practice to open an involuntary manslaughter investigation of a company every time there was a death on the job. This resulted in many criminal prosecutions and justice for the families of dead and injured workers.

The current political climate might produce more Ira Reiners.

Kristen Keller, the prosecuting attorney for Raleigh County, and the only prosecutor in West Virginia who has the power to press charges in the case, recently told Corporate Crime Reporter: “If there is evidence to support a homicide prosecution, I would not hesitate to prosecute."

In the last week, several news outlets, including NPR, the Washington Post, and Reuters, have reported that a Federal criminal investigation is underway against Massey Energy.
NPR also reported that the government was looking into possible bribery of officials at the Mine Health and Safety Administration.

"Most people aren't familiar with the history of criminal prosecution for worker deaths," Mokhiber says. "There is a whole generation that has forgotten the Ford Pinto prosecution, and just thinks workers die on the job sometimes and no one is responsible"

But that is not the case "if the prosecution can make a case that Blankenship knew the situation at the mine and if it meets the legal definition of involuntary manslaughter."

Back in the 1980s, Mokhiber says, Congressman John Conyers proposed a "public endangerment" law that would have held corporate executives criminally liable if they knew of a product or process that could cause harm and failed to report it. But corporate lobbyists tied up the proposed legislation and it died.
Now is a good time for a renewed effort of that kind.
Meanwhile, prosecutors at both the federal and state level have the power to prosecute executives who have direct involvement in negligent practices by their companies that lead to worker deaths and environmental damage.
The only thing holding them back is politics. That's where the renewed social movement comes in.
Ruth Conniff is the political editor of The Progressive magazine.
Let The Sun Shine In......

May 6, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

Congress, Up in Arms

By GAIL COLLINS

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.

“I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

“We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Graham wanted to make it clear that just because he doesn’t want to stop gun purchases by possible terrorists, that doesn’t mean he’s not tough on terror.

“I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights,” he said.

The Obama administration has been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing. No one seems moved by the fact that Shahzad, after being told that he had the right to remain silent, continued talking incessantly.

“Nobody in their right mind would expect a Marine to read someone caught on the battlefield their rights,” Graham said.

Terror threats make politicians behave somewhat irrationally. But the subject of guns makes them act like a paranoid mother ferret protecting her litter. The National Rifle Association, the fiercest lobby in Washington, grades every member of Congress on how well they toe the N.R.A. line. Lawmakers with heavily rural districts would rather vote to legalize carrying concealed weapons in kindergarten than risk getting less than 100 percent.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms,” concerned a modest bill sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. It would allow the government to stop gun sales to people on the F.B.I. terror watch list the same way it does people who have felony convictions. Because Congress has repeatedly rejected this idea, 1,119 people on the watch list have been able to purchase weapons over the last six years. One of them bought 50 pounds of military grade explosives.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, dutifully trekked down to Washington to plead for the bill on behalf of the nation’s cities. The only thing they got for their trouble was praise for getting the city through the Times Square incident in one piece. And almost everyone had a good word for the T-shirt vendor who first noticed the suspicious car and raised an alert. Really, if someone had introduced a bill calling for additional T-shirt vendors, it would have sailed through in a heartbeat.
Gun legislation, not so popular.

Lautenberg’s bill has been moldering in committee, and that is not going to change.

“Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun,” said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who nevertheless went on to argue against allowing the government to use the terrorist watch list to keep anyone from being able to purchase, um, a gun.

“Some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning handguns,” said Graham, darkly. “I don’t think banning handguns makes me safer.”

The terrorist watch list is huge, and some of the names on it are undoubtedly there in error. The bill would allow anyone denied the right to purchase a firearm an appeal process, but that would deprive the would-be purchaser some precious gun-owning time. Before we subject innocent Americans “to having to go into court and pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back, I want to slow down and think about this,” said Graham.

Slow is going to be very slow, and the thinking could go on for decades.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Let The Sun Shine In......

Reid suppports breaking up of large banks

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The Tide Is Turning: Call Your Senator NOW!

The tide is now turning towards real financial reform:

• In a major development, Senator Harry Reid is now supporting breaking up the giant banks and auditing the Fed

• Number two Senate majority leader, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), came out Tuesday in favor of a far-reaching amendment that would break up big banks and cap their size (the Brown-Kaufman amendment)

• Senator Feingold has announced that he will filibuster and financial regulation which does not include serious banking reform

I asked a friend on the hill - a top aide to a very important Congress member - whether people would be wasting their time by calling their Senator. I explained that many people called and demanded that the U.S. not invade Iraq, but that Congress just ignored us. I said that many people feel that traditional political activism, like phonecalls, can't work, as the level of political corruption is too high.

He responded that given the bipartisan support of many congress people and the American people for financial reform, this is very different from Iraq.

He urged everyone to call their Senators and demand the giant banks be broken up and the Fed be audited.

Senator Sanders' bill to audit the Fed will probably be voted on today. Please call your Senator now.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Lieberman supports stripping of citizenship for anyone ....

...suspected of terrorist ties.

Joe Lieberman is independent of everything except Israel. One can expect him to say something insane anytime terrorism or Israel is involved. In his mind the two are forever linked.

by Meg White

Quick. Someone strip Joe Lieberman of his citizenship before he causes actual damage to the country. Oh, wait. I forgot; we don't engage in that kind of Orwellian nonsense in this country.

Yet.

You probably heard about the latest idea from the "independent" senator from Connecticut (who seems to be independent of nothing more than reality) to strip citizenship from people who are accused of having ties to terrorism. Somehow this incredibly stupid idea got codified into an actual bill, which was introduced yesterday. The fact that this knee-jerk response is now present in the Congressional Record is an anathema to our justice system.

Countless questions have been raised about this ridiculous notion advanced by Lieberman. Like, for one: "Why?"

After all, what good does this actually accomplish? The ability to try someone in a military tribunal comes easier when the accused is not a U.S. citizen, but then again, what's the problem with criminal court? And apparently the Miranda rights argument advanced by Lieberman is erroneous as well.

So why would a graduate of Yale Law, who should know better, introduce such a legally fraught, Draconian law?

Oh, of course! I should have known. Thanks for spelling this one out, Rep. Charlie Dent:

Stripping U.S. citizenship from terror suspects is not only the moral thing to do - it will make it easier to kill them, legislators argued Thursday.

"I suspect it would be easier to launch a Hellfire missile at a noncitizen than a citizen," said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). He rolled out a proposal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and others giving the State Department power to yank the citizenship of Yanks who join up with Al Qaeda or similar groups.

Yeah, just killing U.S. citizens whom the State Department suspects of having terrorist ties would be wrong. Instead, we should strip them of their citizenship then bomb them to smithereens. Neat and tidy.

But here's another nagging question: What if they're wrongfully accused? After all, it's happened before. Richard Jewell, anyone?

Of course, Lieberman probably has no interest in stripping citizenship from white Christians accused of terrorism. You didn't see Lieberman all over FOX News suggesting that the Hutaree militants -- who were recently arrested under the suspicion of planning to wage war on this country from within -- be stripped of their citizenship or denied their Miranda rights or tried in a military tribunal.

Nope. It took fellahs with scary names suchas Faisal Shahzad, Umar Faoruk Abdulmutallab and Khalid Sheik Mohammed to arouse such despotic ire in Lieberman.

The scariest part is that Lieberman has bipartisan support for the measure, and by "bipartisan" I don't mean independent Lieberman plus the GOP. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) is introducing companion legislation in the House with the aforementioned Pennsylvanian who likes bombing people. And Greg Sargent is predicting that there are more spineless Democrats "than you might think" who are afraid to deny the State Department the right to deny you your citizenship. Awesome.

I can't wait to hear psychopath-at-large Glenn Beck try to rationalize this to his Big Gubmint-fearing audience.

Not only is this proposal downright offensive to the very idea of American citizenship, it is also downright frightening that people with the grave responsibility of holding national elective office would propose or support it. And that is why we need to act to stem this sudden rush of fascism.

But since we are lawful U.S. citizens who have faith in the American system of justice, I'm not proposing that we strip Lieberman of his citizenship, or toss him in jail or even bug his phone line.

Instead, let's get him disbarred. He clearly has forgotten everything he learned about American justice while in law school. Any Yalies out there who can help me out with this one?

Let The Sun Shine In......

The (Almost) Crash of Wall Street

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Ninety minutes before the end of the trading day today, the U.S. stock market almost melted down The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 1,000 points. The market regained ground before the end, like a giant 747 narrowly averting a crash landing, but the questions of the day are: What happened? And What does it mean?

At this point no one knows why. Some say it was sudden burst of worries about Greece’s debt and the increasing possibility of a default that might cause a run by global investors. Others point to a “trading error.” Giant high-speed computers generate millions of trade based on instructions embedded in computer programs designed to move fast enough to beat everyone else. So when there’s a glitch in one of them it can immediately spread to all the other programs designed to move just as fast. Some say it was an erroneous trade entered by someone at a big Wall Street bank who mistyped an order to sell a large block of stock, and that the big drop in that stock’s price (Procter & Gamble?) triggered “sell” orders across the market.

Regardless of why it happened, it’s further evidence that the nation’s and the world’s capital markets have become a vast out-of-control casino in which fortunes can be made or lost in an instant — which would be fine except for the fact that most of us have put our life savings there. Pension funds, mutual funds, school endowments — the value of all of this depends on a mechanism that can lose a trillion dollars in minutes without anyone having a clear idea why. So much of the market now depends on computer programs and mathematical models that no one fully understands, so much trading is in the hands of a few people whose fat thumbs or momentary carelessness might sink the economy, so much of global wealth now depends on who can move their money quickest at the slightest provocation — that we are toying with financial disaster every day. The luck or foolishness of a few traders, and inside knowledge and information that some possess and others don’t, combined with ultra high-speed computers, put us all at the whim of a system whose risk is way out of proportion to any public benefits.

The financial reforms being considered on Capitol Hill are steps in the right direction. But the “systemic risk” now embedded in our capital markets is higher than ever, and will require far greater understanding and vigilance than now being considered.

Let The Sun Shine In......